triumphguy

Fundamentlism is the problem - not religion or science!

A fundamentalist politician, soldier, priest or scientist is the most dangerous beast on earth.

Fundamentalism is the belief that I am right, and if you believe in these fundamentals you will be right too.

Orthadoxy is consistency in thought which chalenges my own behabviour in all aspects of my life.

Thomas Aquinas wrote that God wrote in two books - scripture and nature, and that truth is to be found in both. Scripture writes about the relationship of a people with it's God. Nature is the environment in which this relationship exists. Truth is to be found in both - though it is not the same truth. However all that is true and beautiful points to the same origin. God.

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin - that coin is man's search for meaning.

MikeUK

I see both as a search for something

But Science isn't a search for meaning , just a search for knowledge for its own sake

Religion I think does search for meaning and may be its reason de etre

but 'meaning' has no relevance in science

Settlers_Unlimited

Sorry, but that is exactly the reason why I'm asking. I did read it and found only threats to those that won't follow and many other frightening things. I really believe now that overwhelming majority or believers have never read it thinking. For example, I can't draw any parallels between Jesus refusing to help those who don't believe and contemporary healthcare with moral principles of todays' doctors. Faith is always absolute and the religion discourages questioning, reasoning and having doubt - the very base of the whole science and therefore our whole life (many of us would never be born or survive past childhood without science). Democracy, based on faith? Sorry, I need some quotations.

BTW, I approved my kids being baptized and admitted to a catholic school, though I don't fancy the latter. Just being democratic to my wife.

JamesM

I would like to know where Jesus refuses to help anyone in the New Testament? I would also like to know where those who don't see him as the "messiah" are threatened by him? I have not read about any of that in either Mathew, Mark, Luke of John?

I am not deeply religious myself but I have been schooled and understand that everything in life involves faith and not just religion. When I break in my car I have faith the car will stop. The fact of the matter is I have faith in the teachings of Jesus in the new testament as good values to live life by. This personal faith has actually increased overtime because the values in the new testament have stood the test of time. Unfortunately for science, not all science, it is largely manipulated now by economics. Economics now dictates more in the world than Science and Religion.

Democracy is definately based on faith. Faith in freedom and faith in the right to choose representation in government. Democracy and more the legal system that upholds this has developed over the centuries starting with the building blocks being based on the teachings of christianity such as love thy neighbour.

triumphguy

Actually I think Jesus threatened those who believed yet who were hypocrites.

Quotes coming up.

Oakvillian

This is a somewhat dangerous argument. I think you confuse Catholicism with Christianity - and conveniently ignore a couple of centuries of European history through the Reformation and the birth of Protestantism. Specifically, I take issue with your reference to "thinkers who challenged that monolith from within" - for the most part, those who challenged Catholic orthodoxy were persecuted, excommunicated, and in some instances imprisoned and tortured. Others left the mainstream Catholic church expressly because they felt unable to challenge the orthodoxy from within. Those who changed the world (Wycliffe, Kepler, Galileo, Luther) and incurred the wrath of the Papacy outnumber those who tried to stay on the right side of canon law (Erasmus springs to mind; I'm sure there are others).

I'm not sure anyone could take issue with the role the Church played in the defence of Europe against the spread of Islam in the middle ages; however, it is a fallacy to presume that this somehow kept the embers of intellectualism alive in Europe. If it weren't for that very same Islamic tradition encouraging philosophical and scientific discovery, keeping the flame of Greek knowledge burning, Europe would have remained in a dark age of ignorance for much longer than it did. It was only because enlightened Christian thinkers in Spain chose (against the wishes of the Church) to engage intellectually wiht Moorish scholars that any of the ancient texts were translated from Arabic to Latin and thus came to currency in European thought.

A radical, though logical, conclusion to that argument is that the Enlightenment would likely have been brought forward by centuries if Europe had been overrun by Islam and the Christian church had collapsed. Christianity has no monopoly on knowledge and intellectual discovery: in fact, it is easier to argue exactly the opposite.

rae

hmmm not so sure about this one, i think just about every western, 'christian' government have coveted their neighbors wife, bourne false witness, killed, stole and who keeps the sabbath sacred?. i suppose it could be taught but just widely ignored though?

ann m

Ah, the old "Do as I say, not as I do" school of teaching.

rae

one in particular i cannot stand. i can't help thinking if the vatican melted down a bit of gold and spread their wealth around they may actually help to solve some problems, instead of the tried and trusted, 'say your prayers'.

triumphguy

All the museums and governments in the world could sell their gold and art and do the same. The result would be a few powerful billionaires own all the art, and the money wouldn't go very far.

Not just the Catholics, but all churches raise billions for charity and many in their respective churches spend billions of hours doing "charitable" work for little or no money.

No one just says "say your prayers."

triumphguy

Good post - and I agree, but...

I don't think the moslem states could have taken Greek thought much further.

It needed the European Universities, the renaissance and the reformation to take things further.

It precisely needed England to develop western thought

Oxford, Cambridge and the renaissance and the reformation at the same time.

Italy had the renaissance, but no reformation and so made ever prettier baubles. Germany/northern Europe had the Reformation first and became dour.

BTW Erasmus was Catholic.
But I also find those who quit, left or who were excommunicated as worthy of my praise/thanks too Luther had been a good monk, and good monk is what he wanted to remain, even if he had to leave to do it!

Novocastrian

I'd go further.

Science: We're think we're right based on our current evidence. But we expect and hope that new, interesting, evidence might well come along, in which case we need to face the welcome challenge of formulating and testing a new hypothesis to explain all the evidence in as simple a way as possible.

Religion: (This is not true of all religions, but certainly of most); We're know we're right because we have faith in God/Allah/That Tree Over There/fill in your local deity of choice. Anything that comes along to contradict us being right shall be ignored/ridiculed/cast aside for as long as possible, and if absolutely necessary eventually embraced as a further demonstration that God etc. moves in mysterious ways.

Settlers_Unlimited

Those may be not really threats as can be understood in todays world, but Matthew 10:11 to 15 doesn't especially look friendly to me. 10:34 through 10:38 is equally good (go read this to your loved ones), though offtopic in the context of this discussion.

I remember also I was very impressed by Matthew 21:17 to 19 (the story is repeated in other Gospels, of course, like in Mark 11:13). Why be so angry? I could not get it.

The beginning of Mark chapter 6 tells how he could not do the mighty work. Only to few people. Well, it was not his choice may be - they were not true believers over there. Matthew 19:16 can't directly classify for that, but it's going in the same direction of "no faith - you get nothing". Important is also, no right faith. He didn't really fancy those belonging somewhere else.

Which comes to the statement of "love thy neighbour". Jesus came as a king of Jews. The love was only about that restricted to his folks, and if they were faithful, and not a general one. Not the same of course as some of today's extreme nationalism, but I won't make that commandment so precious, and it would be definitely negated by so often repeated ignoring of family members in the name of the true faith (see above).

Settlers_Unlimited

You are thinking? I believe in this!

rae

i do not think anyone would deny that all religions contribute enormously to poverty, charity and the like. I do not see though the connection with museums owning historically important pieces of art, and churches having bloody huge gold candles everywhere. why can they not have wooden ones keeping in touch with their carpentry beginnings.
this is a very simplistic point i accept, given some of the stuff on here, most of which i have never heard of. it annoys me though.

more importantly, man utd 2 blackburn 1